This link takes you to a 5d3 vs 5d2 comparison at DXO. Scroll down a little bit to ISO Latitude...they use the word "expendable" instead of "expandable" to describe ISO expansion. I didn't bother to see if they do this elsewhere.

Is this a big deal? Is it worth mentioning? WELL, millions of photographers around the world hang on the ultra important DXO scores...and then you see this from a group that supposedly is smart enough to perform all these sophisticated tests, with quality controls, and a disciplined process.[/b]

Neeneko

Oh no! Not a typo involving two words with nearly identical spelling by people who's native language isn't english! Their maths must be defective because any mistake of any type invalidates everything!

*headdesk*

Part of me is hoping this was supposed to be a joke post. Such a leap of logic either shows defectively black and white thinking or a real bone to pick.

Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??

I respectfully disagree. It's not a simple typo, they spelled it that way twice on the same line..AND...they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison. So an error and a typo in the same line... Also, the "a" and the "e" on a keyboard are nowhere near each other...so it's actually more than just a typo.(possible that they didn't know how to spell expandable)

In my business, if I presented a report to a client that had wrong information and erroneous information, I would worry that I wouldn't "get the deal", and I would be embarrassed, and I would be concerned that the client would have a negative perception of our company's quality of work.

ALSO - a side note that I've been itching to post, but also helps make my point - like many others on this website and worldwide...How can they rate the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II so poorly when EVERYBODY else thinks it's one of the best zooms ever made by anybody.....JUST THEIR REVIEW OF THE 70-200 IS II DISCREDITS THEM IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. A reputable company would possibly conclude that they received a bad copy and try again, but NO. Again, it's poor reporting/presentation/research/testing.... "something fishy going on" in my opinion.

If everyone else says 2+2 = 4, but you get 5, then go back and double check your work...triple check if necessary. Obviously in both my points above they didn't double or triple check their work. AND IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!

Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??

I respectfully disagree. It's not a simple typo, they spelled it that way twice on the same line..AND...they also got the specs wrong on the same line - the 5d3 is actually "expendable"(idiots) down to 50, they wrote "100" in their comparison. So an error and a typo in the same line... Also, the "a" and the "e" on a keyboard are nowhere near each other...so it's actually more than just a typo.(possible that they didn't know how to spell expandable)

Here's the deal - Businesses present reports/information/proposals/ and presentations to businesses in other countries and in various foreign languages thousands of times every day - IF YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF INFORMATION, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS NEED TO BE ACCURATE AND FREE OF ERRORS....THIS IS THEIR BUSINESS!! In my business, if I presented a report to a client that had wrong information and erroneous information, I would worry that I wouldn't "get the deal", and I would be embarrassed, and I would be concerned that the client would have a negative perception of our company's quality of work.

ALSO - a side note that I've been itching to post, but also helps make my point - like many others on this website and worldwide...HOW IN GOD'S NAME DO THEY RATE THE Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II SO POORLY - when EVERYBODY else thinks it's one of the best zooms ever made by anybody.....JUST THEIR REVIEW OF THE 70-200 IS II DISCREDITS THEM IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. A reputable company would possibly conclude that they received a bad copy and try again, but NO. Again, it's poor reporting/presentation/research/testing.... "something fishy going on" in my opinion.

If everyone else says 2+2 = 4, but you get 5, then go back and double check your work...triple check if necessary. Obviously in both my points above they didn't double or triple check their work. AND IF YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AS A TESTING / INFORMATION COMPANY- YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLE / TRIPLE CHECKING YOUR WORK!!

+1

If the word is used colloquially I would understand. BUT it should never had happened if the work is double checked or edited.

paul13walnut5

My gripe with DXO is that canon and nikon have different processors to make the most of their own sensors, and that by reviewing cameras from RAW data only (rather than say in camera JPEGS or TIFFs created via DPP or NX2 etc) is like test driving a car with the gearbox removed.

Simple typos are not worth getting excited about.

Their DXOmark of the cameras I have used bears no relation to the real life images I get from cameras which have been consistently well reviewed elsewhere (thus my decision to buy)

Get over it, typo's happen. Particularly to a French website which has to translate to English. How is your French spelling??

I disagree too. It don't think it takes anything away from the results, but appearing professional and as if what you are trying to sell, communicate etc. actually works/is the truth, making sure that simple mistakes like these are not there is paramount, IMO. It shows sloppiness and a disregard for detail, which IMO is a problem.

I disagree too. It don't think it takes anything away from the results, but appearing professional and as if what you are trying to sell, communicate etc. actually works/is the truth, making sure that simple mistakes like these are not there is paramount, IMO. It shows sloppiness and a disregard for detail, which IMO is a problem.

My goodness, don't ever listen to politicians speak. You'd come away with the impression that our world leaders are all sloppy idiots.

For what it's worth, I work with agencies providing photography... A simple 1 word mis-spelling, in an agency or marketing situation, could cost someone their job and or career depending how bad it is. I would generally agree a 1 off type happens and shouldn't be overstated and the company will do what it needs to do... mis-information however is a bigger issue and reason to call to arms